Dataism posits that the universe operates as a network of data flow, wherein humans function as organisms driven by biochemical algorithms, and machines rely on electronic algorithms. Both these systems are viewed as algorithms, highlighting their fundamental similarity.
According to this perspective, intuition is subjective, and the growing influence of big data could render it less relevant. The author contends that theories might be seen as ideologies, and with an abundance of data, they might lose their significance. Consequently, dataism is seen as the future, where emotions will give way to data-driven decision-making.
Capitalism, initially a scientific theory, has evolved into a global dominating force, even resembling a form of religion. Similarly, dataism, once a theoretical concept, is increasingly approaching the ability to discern right from wrong. As algorithms come to understand individuals better than they understand themselves, they may guide personal decisions, potentially even in matters such as marriage. This transformation in data processing could be omnipresent, akin to a deity, and humans might opt to integrate with it, leading to a scenario where those who do not merge with machines may be marginalized, resembling a “class of the unnecessary.”
In this vision, dataism becomes a quasi-religion, emphasizing the supreme value of free access to information.
Every religion has its prophets who impart their beliefs and martyrs who defend them fervently. Dataism is no exception, with Aaron Swartz serving as a martyr. Swartz, a hacktivist, gained notoriety for liberating millions of academic articles for public access, actions that resulted in his arrest and, ultimately, his tragic suicide. Prophets are also pivotal in the spread of religious wisdom, and in the realm of dataism, Raymond Kurzweil plays this role. An engineer at Google, he advocates for humanity’s journey toward transhumanism, the advancement of humans through technology. Kurzweil foresees a future where humans and machines seamlessly merge. [SD-13]
[280].
Wow, Shuvro, it is intriguing to see how you conceptualize dataism as a belief system. Similar to what occurs in some religious practices, dataists seem to have prophecies about the future—what technology will do for humans and how they think it will make the world better because, of course, humans are flawed. The Bible says God “regretted that he had made human beings on earth, and his heart was deeply troubled” (Gen. 6:6 NIV). I hope dataists don’t also have regrets about their utopian obsessions in millennia to come. Fingers crossed.
Hey Shurvo,
Are you suggesting that religions are bad af, even though they tend to sponsor the kind of discursive processes Han, et al. worry are becoming less relevant under the auspices of Dataism? Are you saying Schwartz himself was a Dataist? This isn’t an attack and rather a genuine curiosity. More: do you think Schwartz was on to something in attempting to democratize the information? Do you think his efforts to spread the gospel of information to the masses lent itself to human beings once again seeing what Han says is common, incidental, and customary — “the things that do not attract us but ground us” (xi)?